At 07:25 26-01-2012, Adrian Farrel wrote:
I have not made any statement about what the company has done.
Ok.
I don't view *disclosing* as a problem here. In fact disclosure is to be
encouraged.
I too don't view disclosing as a problem here. It is possible to
compare the statement with other such statements and see the differences.
My issue is with the individual. BCP 79 is very clear about individual
responsibilities wrt IPR that they are aware of.
Yes.
It is the individual who breaks the IETF's IPR policy if they make
contributions
when there is IPR that they are aware of that is not disclosed in a timely
fashion.
Yes.
Questions that should not be asked should not, by definition, be asked.
I wonder if you are concerned about corporate and anti-trust issues.
I am concerned that individuals who are sponsored by their company
will end up being the escape goat. I am concerned that the Note Well
might end up being ignored. If individuals do not understand the
Note Well, it is unlikely that they will understand any future
antitrust policy.
I am also interested in the discussion about whether moving an author's name
from the front page to the Acknowledgements (with an explanation)
would have an
impact on discussions of IPR policy violation in court. This will need
professional legal advice - my feeling was that previous I-D versions would
Yes.
But I come back to this point because I think it is important: the violation
here is of the individual contributor's responsibility under BCP79.
That is the point being discussed.
Regards,
-sm
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf